Dear conservatives

An open letter.

They’ll leave a light on for you.

(via Dr. Dawg, CC and DDBG)

19 Responses to “Dear conservatives”


  1. 1 Torontonian Friday, March 26, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    The Republicans were a far different party before the Moral Majority got their hooks into them and led them down the garden path.

    Who was the last Republican president who commanded any great respect without all the Moral Majority claptrap in the mix?

    Not Bush 2, not Bush 1, not Reagan, not Nixon, but Eisenhower.
    Since Eisenhower’s days the GOP hasn’t been a competent party and has spun further away from Main Street America during the last 30 years.

    The present leadership is just so pitiful that it will take the better part of a decade to regain respectability. Until then, the Democrats have a lot of work to “undo” and many minds to reorient.

    The open letter says exactly what many of us have held–that the party has stopped being the servant of the people and
    become the master of vulnerable people’s minds.

    I’ll stop here because the religious component of the GOP’s failures are a separate element and time does not allow it here and now.

  2. 2 Rob F Friday, March 26, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Cue LGF comparisons…

  3. 3 Brian Friday, March 26, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    This is just stupid propaganda.

    You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from yours; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more.

    The RNC chair is black. A republican appointed the first black secretary of state. A republican appointed the first black Joint Chief of Staff. When a republican nominated a Latino to the Supreme Court who the ABA rated highly qualified, it was Democrats who attacked the man and defeated his being the 1st Latino justice of the Supreme Court. The list goes on and on.

    Republicans don’t “fear” non-Christians (which was surely the meaning), nor those of other cultures.

    We don’t fear those with sex lives that differ from ours. We do oppose sexual perversion (which happens also to include child molestation adultery, bestiality, necromancy and so on), but that is not fear. I mean really, get real — opposing something, no matter what it is, is not synonymous with fearing it. This is a childish propagandistic ploy to freeze, then demonize the opposition. It’s cowardly (in that it avoids real controversy through gimmicks specifically designed to avoid having to discuss the issue at hand).

     

    … when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass)…

    “Deem and pass” is a legitimate parliamentary process for modifying house rules, and has been used that way for decades. The Constitution does not allow for deem and pass in crafting legislation. Reductionism is a logical fallacy (as opposed to a valid argument), and is a tried-and-true tactic of propagandists.

    So Republicans and Democrats using deem and pass hundreds of times for budgetary issues (the sole province of the House of Representatives) and for modifying House rules (the sole province of the House of representatives), but to decry its use for legislation — which is a violation of the Constitution — is not hypocrisy.

     

    You can’t flip out — and threaten impeachment …

    Plying the talk shows is not flipping out. Using the press to affect the position of the populace is not flipping out — taking your message to the people is exactly the way things should be done.

    Talk of impeachment is bone headed, but some republicans doing so (despite the breathless media coverage of it) does not equal that being a position of “the republicans” or conservatives, since virtually all would oppose that. Joe Biden as president?!? God help us all!

     

    You can’t vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it’s done in your own district.

    Oh! Give me a break! How could we have politics at all without politicians opposing something until it becomes popular, then taking credit for it? The Civil Rights Act passed against Democrat opposition, and now Democrats claim victory over it. That’s politics, for crying out loud. It sucks, but it is nuts to have your hair on fire over it.

     

    You can’t rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

    Reductionism is a logical fallacy, and a tool of propagandists. No one — at all — has railed against using teleprompters as a universal, as this charge implies! Some have scoffed at using a teleprompter for every single public utterance.

    Tell me, honestly: don’t you think George W Bush would have delivered fewer verbal mistakes if he were reading what he was saying off of a script?

     

    You can’t flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, …

    Of course we can! The president is not a mere citizen, he is the representative of the nation. It is inapropriate to bow to foreign leaders. Disagree? Did the foreign leader bos to Obama “as appropriate for their culture?” Of course not. This is reductionism all over again.

    By the way, I would be just as opposed if Republicans bowed to foreign leaders.

    By the way II: the picture linked of “Bush bowing” to King Abdullah is clearly the king putting some award or something around the president’s neck, and he is accommodating that. It is just without honor to present that as the president bowing to the king. It is simply lying.

    The picture of Nixon that is linked does indeed look like Nixon bowing, yet Emperor Hirohito seems to be doing so also. Still, if the picture is what it looks like, I say that Nixon was wrong to do so (as was Emperor Hirohito).

     

    You can’t complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt — the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

    Of course we can! It was wrong for the shoe bomber to be treated as a criminal instead of a terrorist, just as it was wrong for the Fruit-Of-The-Boom bomber to be treated as a criminal. What kind of a moron believes that, once we make an error, we must keep repeating that error over and over until someone who didn’t commit the error comes along and corrects it?!? Unbelievable.

     

    =====================================

     

    call members of Congress nigger and faggot when they disagree with them on policy;

    The allegation of the use of the word “nigger” is almost certainly false. During these days surrounding the HCR vote there were cameras everywhere! It strains credulity that such an event would not be caught on camera, or at least on audio. And you just gotta know that we would be hearing it on an endless news loop if anyone had such a recording. But I am inclined to believe that even if it did happen, that it was a plant. But even if it were not a plant, it has been condemned up one side and down the other but conservative speaker after speaker — politicians, pundits, talk show hosts, blogs, and on and on. You just have to want to ignore the facts to continue to try to paste Republicans with this. But then, that’s what propagandists do.

     

    … call women bitches & prostitutes just because you don’t like their politics …

    Jim Quinn (whom I had not heard of before this) didn’t call women bitches, he called Nanci Pelosi a “Bolshevik Bitch with a Mallet.” I find that unacceptable. But it is not the same a “[calling] women bitches.”

    Quinn (yes…, again) on Pelosi: “This bitch is trying to get us to lose the war!” As I said just above, I find that unacceptable. But if this name calling of women by conservatives so rampant, why can’t this propagandist find more than one person with which to make the case?

    Rush Limbaugh did not call women prostitutes, as a universal. He didn’t even call Mary Landrieu a prostitute in a sexual sense. He called her the “biggest prostitute in the history of prostitution” for selling her vote for $300 million. It is routine to call a politician a “prostitute” when alleging that they sold their vote, or changed their position on something for some kinds of reward. (Some people called Neil Young a prostitute when he came on stage with an electric guitar at a folk music festival.) $300 million is a pretty big reward! But to find fault with this kind of thing is crocodile tears (if politics is too rough for you, you should probably stay out of it…), and is further only an issue because of who it was who said it, which just makes this ad hominem, and more propaganda.

     

    Anyway, I’m getting tired of this, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Open letter to conservatives my foot! It’s just a lame, amateur’s attempt at effective propaganda.

  4. 4 Reality Bites Friday, March 26, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Brian, if you’re getting tired you can leave any time. Honest, we won’t mind at all.

  5. 5 Janus Friday, March 26, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    “We do oppose sexual perversion…” unless it’s one that we secretly practise for ourselves *tap tap*…

    “The president is not a mere citizen, he is the representative of the nation. It is inapropriate to bow to foreign leaders.”

    It’s called being polite, a concept with which you are obviously unfamiliar.

    “Open letter to conservatives my foot! It’s just a lame, amateur’s attempt at effective propaganda.”

    Pretty damned professional quality amateur! And he backed it up with the appropriate links and everything!

    You shoot fish in barrels? No sport in you at all, is there?

  6. 6 Brian Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 12:29 am

        It’s called being polite, a concept with which you are obviously unfamiliar.

      Maybe I am more familiar with the concept than you, who knows?  I do know this: you do not need to imply subservience or submission to be polite; you can be polite without doing that (and you can imply subservience and be impolite, as well).  I have actually demonstrated that here, as I have been much more polite than I have been treated.  I’m not whining, just observing.  So I would have to say that it is not “obvious,” in fact, that I am unfamiliar with the concept of politeness; quite the opposite is true.

        unless it’s one that we secretly practise for ourselves

      It is actually possible to oppose something that you struggle with — and without being a hypocrite.  For example, I think most alcoholics will tell you that the life of addiction is to be eschewed.  It is when you say “be like me” when you are not being as you promote, that you are being hypocritical.

        Pretty damned professional quality amateur! And he backed it up with the appropriate links and everything!

      Apparently you didn’t actually read what I wrote. Item after item was bogus.  Adding links (or foot notes, or references) does not create quality.  Sometimes (as in the case of this “open letter”) it is merely a blizzard designed to obfuscate.  Sometimes it isn’t, but your statement seems to imply that more links equals more professionalism.

    Brian, if you’re getting tired you can leave any time. Honest, we won’t mind at all.

       You don’t think the balkanization of the web, where everyone retreats to the places where they find 100% concurrence, is problematic?  I do.  People touted the web as increasing connectedness.  But the balkanization actually creates islands of isolation.  That’s not good, it’s problematic.

  7. 7 Cornelius T.Zen Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Good morrow, all!
    Brian: perhaps you can enlighten all of us succinctly.
    What exactly are “conservatives” attempting to “conserve”?
    In His time, Jesus Christ was considered a dangerous radical. Why do you suppose He was crucified? Because He went along with the Powers That Be, because He endorsed the Sanhedrin and their practices, because He said, “Yeah, I’m here to make sure you losers toe the line?”
    There was a time when our ancestors came down out of the trees, when they learned to walk upright, when they learned to harness fire, and make hunting weapons, and invented the wheel, and tame the horse, and grow crops, and build houses, and make clothing, and…I’m sure that the “conservatives” of their day opposed all these inventions and discoveries and progress.
    Humanity had made all of its progress, not because of, but IN SPITE OF, all the efforts of the “conservatives” of history to slow or stop any ideas, inventions, discoveries or insights that ultimately benefited all and sundry.
    Why do you suppose God designed people with their heads on top of their bodies and their eyes in the front of their heads? So that people would always be looking forward and up, NOT backwards and down.
    America is a land where people believe that evolution is fake, and pro wrestling is real.
    You are welcome to stay in Neverland. The rest of us will just have to be content with growing up – CTZEn

  8. 8 Brian Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:35 am

    What exactly are “conservatives” attempting to “conserve”?

    You gotta be kidding me! You want to make points with bumper-sticker slogans that fly by virtue of a category error?!? (Unbelievable…)

    OK:

    The Compact Oxford English Dictionary has:

         1 averse to change and holding traditional values.
         2 (in a political context) favouring free enter-
         prise, private ownership, and socially conservative
         ideas.

    This is akin to asking “What does a conservatory conserve?” (which is a room with a glass roof & walls, attached to a house & used as a sun lounge or a greenhouse).  Wouldn’t you have difficulty taking seriously as one with whom to discuss, someone who knows so little of English as to make that category error?

     

    In His time, Jesus Christ was considered a dangerous radical. Why do you suppose He was crucified? Because He went along with the Powers That Be, because He endorsed the Sanhedrin and their practices, because He said, “Yeah, I’m here to make sure you losers toe the line?”

    In fact, that is exactly the case!

    Today’s US liberals add things to the Constitution not contained therein, such as the “right to privacy,” and the idea that anything that has any influence whatsoever on the behavior of commerce across state lines is automatically within Congress’s purview, by virtue of the Constitution tasking them with regulating interstate commerce.  The legal precedence for this was set in the 1940s.  A man was growing vegetables in his own garden for his own private use.  In a court case it was argued that if he weren’t growing vegetables, he’d need to buy them at the market, and those market vegetables would be coming across state lines, affecting interstate commerce. Therefore the government could prohibit his garden. US Liberals insist they are doing this for the benefit of the people. Conservatives insist on the Constitution meaning exactly what it says, and only what it says.

    The Sadducees & the Pharisees had added a lot to what the Bible actually said.  For example, given that the Bible said to rest on the Sabbath, they prohibited walking through a grain field on the Sabbath.  They reasoned that you might knock a head of grain to the ground, accidentally step on it (threshing it), and that the hem of your garment might cause a draft blowing the chaff away, and thus you would be “harvesting on the Sabbath.”  They thought they were protecting the people from accidentally breaking God’s laws.  Jesus called the people back to the actual meaning of what had been written.  I do believe the Pharisees felt they were doing good, and that Jesus was going to bring the wrath of God against Israel.

    Jesus was a radical only in the sense that he was a fundamentalist in an era that was not fundamentalist.

     

    … I’m sure that the “conservatives” of their day opposed all these inventions and discoveries and progress.

    Well, naturally, you are free to hold whatever biases keep you warm at night, but I can hardly gainsay an unsupported opinion…

    But conservatives — political conservatives (just making sure you don’t get confused) — don’t oppose progress, they oppose progressivism (which is exactly as related to progress as conservatism is to conserving).  Progressives have chosen this moniker for their political position, because it allows painting opponents as “fighting against progress” in a category error like the one you opened with.  But, just like your opening, this is a bumper-sticker slogan category error.

     

    Humanity had made all of its progress, not because of, but IN SPITE OF, all the efforts of the “conservatives” of history to slow or stop any ideas, inventions, discoveries or insights that ultimately benefited all and sundry.

    Actually it is “IN SPITE OF, all the efforts of ‘reactionaries’ of history.”  As I just said, political conservatives don’t oppose progress, only “progress” in unwise directions — as any reasonable person does.

     

    Why do you suppose God designed people with their heads on top of their bodies and their eyes in the front of their heads? So that people would always be looking forward and up, NOT backwards and down.

    Nice. Another bumper-sticker category error.

    First of all, having eyes mounted higher allows more effectively looking down, seeing the lay of the area.  Even snakes can look up…

    Second, physical movement forward is not in the same category as what we term “forward progress,” which often has no physical component.

    Third, your case hinges on the idea that where God put our eyes and head is intended as a metaphorical, proverbial lesson for us to internalize, rather than merely a good physical layout for functional reasons.  Are you now speaking for God?  When I talk about what God said or meant, I back it up with biblical references.  This puts me in the position of explaining what God said, not “revealing” things not seen or heard before.  Where’s your citation for this meaning to be discovered from where God located our eyes?

     

    America is a land where people believe that evolution is fake, and pro wrestling is real.

    So now you are a nationalist also, looking down on an entire nation because some of the people who watch “professional” wrestling believe it to be genuine? (A really small percentage of the population watches “professional” wrestling, and most of them know it to be 100% show.)

    Virtually no one in America believes evolution is a “fake” (or wrong) as a universal. Somewhere around half believe that macro evolution is a mistaken interpretation of the evidence. But all believe that micro evolution is taking place all around us, all the time.  that would be a roughly similar figure for Canada.

    America, a land that has fought tyranny all over the world on behalf of those being tyrannized.
    America, the land that has given refuge to more immigrants than any other nation on the planet.
    America who gave us a huge proportion of the inventions and technological advances that save lives and make living easier around the world.
    Anyone on the planet can become an American through the legal immigration process.  You cannot ever “become” an Italian, or a Frenchman if you weren’t born there (just to cite 2 examples out of scads).

    What a stupid thing to say!  You really surprised me with this one; I had thought more highly of you.  Apparently that was a mistake.

    You say, “The rest of us will just have to be content with growing up.”  I recommend that you get to it, and soon!

  9. 9 Cornelius T.Zen Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Good morrow, all!
    Brian: You know, we could be at this all day, and still come to the same conclusion: We don’t agree. Would it fair to say that?
    “Jesus was a radical only in the sense that he was a fundamentalist in an era that was not fundamentalist.”
    Ah, I see. The mere fact that the Sanhedrin reinforced a set of policies and procedures, and made them part of the religious law of the time, did not make those policies and procedures fundamental. Then what were they? Progressive? Radical? Liberal? In other words, you understand Mosaic Law better than any one of us, perhaps better than any of them? The fact that you could, with impunity, stone your wife in a fit of pique, or sell your daughter into slavery, did not make it right, merely what you could get away with.
    Jesus went against the traditions of the day. He threatened the authority of the time. Was He not, from time to time, denounced for heresy, and threatened with stoning? Did He not associate with publicans (bar owners) tax collectors (highly respected and revered people, I’m sure) and prostitutes (sure to warm the cockles of any Pharisee’s heart)
    Human society needs both liberals and conservatives. Liberals make progress possible. Conservatives make it necessary.
    We need people like you, Brian, to remind us why people like us feel the way the do, think the way we think, say the things we say, and dream our dreams of a future that works.
    Bend your knee to the past, Brian, to the values of tradition and your Founding Fathers, most of whom were Deists who abhorred the religious prejudices of their time, and dreamed of a humanity that valued Reason and Understanding.
    We disagree. We will always disagree. You will always be free to say whatever you feel is right. I will always be free to tell you that I see things as they could be and ask, “Why Not?”
    Sides, laughter is the best medicine – CTZen

  10. 10 Rob F Monday, April 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Two more statements, by Chris Currey and The Sensuous Curmudgeon that make the same point and that have the same gist.

  11. 11 Brian Monday, April 5, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    You know, we could be at this all day, and still come to the same conclusion: We don’t agree. Would it fair to say that?

    Yes, I think we agree.

     

    The mere fact that the Sanhedrin reinforced a set of policies and procedures, and made them part of the religious law of the time, did not make those policies and procedures fundamental. Then what were they?

    In this context, fundamentalists are those who hold to what was written, those who find Scripture authoritative. Functionally, Scripture was their Constitution.

    Political fundamentalists, in this age and in the US would be those who hold to the actual meaning of the Constitution as written, rather than as re-interpreted.

     

    Jesus went against the traditions of the day.

    True enough, but he never went against the written word of Scripture. Rather, He used Scripture to back up what He said.

     

    Was He not, from time to time, denounced for heresy, and threatened with stoning?

    Yes, He was. But not for going against Scripture. I pointed out earlier their “rule” regarding walking through a grain field on the Sabbath. Going against that rule is not heresy, despite one being called a heretic for doing so. A fundamentalist would say, “Where is it written?”, as Jesus often did.

     

    Did He not associate with publicans (bar owners) tax collectors (highly respected and revered people, I’m sure) and prostitutes (sure to warm the cockles of any Pharisee’s heart)

    Yes, he did. I get grief for the same thing, being a Christian rock and roll musician. Some Christians I know question my presence in such places as bars and lounges. But as a fundamentalist who knows his Bible, I am immune to their adding to what Scripture says.

     

    Human society needs both liberals and conservatives. Liberals make progress possible. Conservatives make it necessary.

    I disagree (as you might imagine!). Calling liberalism progress does not make it so, though I am very impressed by the success of choosing that name for centralization of the government, and expansion of government power. As a marketing act, it is fabulous.

     

    Bend your knee to the past, Brian, to the values of tradition and your Founding Fathers, most of whom were Deists who abhorred the religious prejudices of their time…

    This is inaccurate. Some were deists, but nothing like “most” were. Even those who were were still intensely swept up in the movement that fundamentalist Christianity had wrought in the half century before them, upholding the dignity of men as bearers of the image of God, and so on.

     

    …and dreamed of a humanity that valued Reason and Understanding.

    They reasoned that since man bears the image of God, and God is reasonable, that using reason was using that which God had given them. Of course, to reason that God gave them reasoning ability so as to reach the conclusion that there was no God to give them the reasoning ability to figure that from would have been anathema to them. This “age of Reason” that is in many ways militantly atheistic would have appalled them just as it does me.

     

     

     

    I read what Chris Currey wrote until I came to the statement about Clinton’s fiscal restraint. I laughed out loud, and gave up on it as an irredeemably revisionistic writer. Sorry.

    In a bid to keep this short, I’ll resist having a say on The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

  12. 12 JJ Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 8:43 am

    In a bid to keep this short,

    Too late!
    😛 😉

    Incidentally, Clinton was far more fiscally conservative than either Georgie I or II (especially II) ever dreamed of being. He came into office with a deficit and left with a surplus (which Georgie II prompted squandered). Republicans talk a good game about fiscal conservatism, but they never live up to it.

  13. 13 JJ Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Rob F – Thanks for the links. Both excellent posts — I wish more rational conservatives would speak out like that. If the GOP doesn’t make some heavy-duty changes pretty soon it will be impossible for them to appeal to centrists, and I don’t see that as being good for American democracy.

  14. 14 Cornelius T.Zen Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Good morrow, all!
    Actually, wasn’t Dubya the third George to be president? Which would make him George III. And we all remember how George III of England wound up, eh?
    What with all the 80’s remakes that Hollywood is coming up with these days, someone had to float the idea of another Rain Man.
    Been there, done that. Starring Dubya and Darth Cheney.
    When you spend more on the military than on education, what do you get? Smart bombs, and soldiers too dumb to operate them.
    Why am I not surprised? – CTZen

  15. 15 JJ Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 8:55 am

    CTZen – I should have said Bush I and Bush II. Ooops

  16. 16 Brian Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Clinton was far more fiscally conservative than either Georgie I or II (especially II) ever dreamed of being.

    I don’t know the details re Bush 41, but I know that the details you present in that sentence are true with regard to Bush 43, but it is using the truth to tell a lie.

    When Clinton came into office, he was not fiscally responsible. There were many reasons, but his lack of fiscal responsibility played a role in the 1994 republican takeover of congress — 1st time in 40 years.

    Because of the congressional makeup, he had to operate differently, that is, in a way that included much more responsibility than he otherwise would have included.

    So it is a combination of the White House and the congress that creates fiscal responsibility or not.

    Congress was taken over by Democrats for the last 2 years of Bush 43, and that, too, played a role (the opposite of the role that congress played in 1994). I am not letting Bush off the hook; I have already said that it is a combination of the White House and congress.

    For whatever reason, Bush 43 just would not veto anything. This gave a congress a proportionately larger role in the fiscal responsibility, but George shirked his responsibility (in my mind) by not vetoing a lot of that irresponsible spending.

    Anyway, that’s why I said that what Chris Currey said was revisionistic.

  17. 17 Brian Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:38 am

    which Georgie II prompted squandered

    It’s a major point that the 9/11 attack was in the early stages of Bush 43’s term. That seriously bludgeoned the economy, which in turn affects the inflow part of the deficit equation.

    Big ramp-ups in airport security were undertaken, the dept. of Homeland Security was created (and other offices of this and that type), and military expenditures rose sharply. This all affected the outflow component of the deficit equation.

    9/11, and its aftermath, make comparing the deficit/surplus figures pretty questionable unless one’s comparison takes into account the whole “economy-scape.”

    We were already entering a recession while Bush 43 was being sworn in; it hardly seems sporting to tag him with that. Yet, during his 8 years, the economy expanded impressively, unemployment hovered between 4 and 5% (economics classes used to teach that 6% unemployment equaled full employment, taking into consideration people moving from job to job, and other factors). Government spending as a percentage of GDP was generally lower than average.

    There were problems, to be sure—many of which I am still steaming over—but nothing like what we are all going through right now.

  18. 18 Brian Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Republicans talk a good game about fiscal conservatism, but they never live up to it.

    Clinton’s last 6 years were as good as they were in part due to Republicans living up to their talk —— in part…

  19. 19 Brian Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 10:07 am

    When you spend more on the military than on education, what do you get?

    This is a bit of a false comparison. I mean, you get more bang for the buck with education.

    Plus, the correlation between money spent v. educational quality does not support a dollar for dollar analysis of improving education.

    Not looking at any particular military campaign, but just considering the role of the military v. the role of the education, if the military fails sufficiently spectacularly you no longer have a nation. Education becomes somewhat moot at that point.

    There is no evidence that we have soldiers too uneducated to fulfill their mission. US soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have operated better than almost any military in history. It didn’t sound like you were saying the military has always been too stupid to function, but that it is a recent phenomenon driven by skewed spending.

    And now that I think about it, they make weapons smart to make it less necessary to know a lot before you can use them, don’t they? “Fire and forget” is the goal, right? (Even stoopidh peepel cun point…) And if the educational system is unable to produce individuals to serve as minimally qualified soldiers, where are they finding the individuals smart enough to make the smart weapons in the first place? I mean, logically speaking, one can’t make a device that is smarter than they are, now can they?


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 631,203
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: